Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Cowboys were lined up to attempt a 39 yard FG. The play clock was at 3 seconds and they weren't fully set, so Tony Romo got up to call timeout, but the Cowboys had no timeouts left. So they should have been penalized for delay of game, except... Shanahan called timeout. No penalty, FG was good.

In case anyone hasn't seen the highlight, the field goal was only good by a few inches. 5 more yards and it's definitely a miss.

In case anyone hasn't seen the highlight, the field goal was only good by a few inches. 5 more yards and it's definitely a miss.

Yes, but I intentionally left that part out because the outcome of the kick is irrelevant in regards to the process. If he had missed it still would have been a stupid decision. The ball could have been on the 3 yard line and it is still a stupid decision. Let them get the penalty, then call timeout if icing the kicker is so important to you.

I pretty much see Tebow as Vince Young reborn. Like Young we're getting the "He just knows how to win!" - like Vince Young it will end unless he improves his ability as a passer. He'll get a longer leash because he's a White Christian Savior, although Young got a pretty long leash.

Norv is a horrible head coach but Lovie's fake punt call was insane.

Lovie is dumb, but Norv Turner goes to IQ 0 the second he puts on the head coach's headset. He's a good offensive coordinator - why can't the NFL just leave it at that? I kind of feel bad for Chargers fans going from Schottenheimer (another guy whose brain went on freeze the moment the playoffs began) to Turner.

And Shanahan, to me, is pretty much the Tony La Russa of the NFL. They even look a little alike.

McNabb tried to become a pocket passer because he was so un-untouchable that his body couldn't take the pounding.

Not quite. McNabb is famously lazy and if you noticed, he ballooned up, consistently, during his career, he quickly became lead footed and slow. Steve Young set the NFL rushing mark for a QB at age 37 or 39. Too lazy to check.

I saw those sosh, reports seem to differ i have heard a week or 2 and read 6-8 weeks and possibly the whole season. Either way its not good but on the bright side todd collins is not taking the field in his place

I assume the obvious parallels between the famous 1962 Thanksgiving game (the first ever, I believe) between undefeated Green Bay and a tough Detroit Lions team led by Alex Karras and Roger Brown and this Thursday's game have been noted. Pretty cool set of circumstances.

I dunno. He's attempted a total of 14 regular-season passes in his career. Didn't the Bears scramble to sign Kerry Collins rather than have him as the primary backup at one point? That's not a good sign.

Yes, but if it were a deadball foul, then the Eagles would have gotten the completion, then had the taunting yards subtracted (but still a net positive).

Either way, Jackson's an idiot.

I dunno. He's attempted a total of 14 regular-season passes in his career. Didn't the Bears scramble to sign Kerry Collins rather than have him as the primary backup at one point? That's not a good sign.

No, they signed Todd Collins last year, which proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Hanie played pretty decently in the NFC Championship game after the club foolishly gave Collins a couple of more series to confirm that whatever meager skills he once possessed had long since evaporated.

yes, but one was a defensive holding call that happened during the play, and the other was a dead-ball foul that occurred after it. it's basically the same situation as where a guy catches a ball for a first down, and then takes a swing at the defender who tackled him at the end of the play. it's a 15 yard personal foul from the end of the play, but the next series starts brand new, 1st and 10.

that was how the call should go in my mind. it might have been the right call, but i've never seen it, and logically, it seems wrong.

If the rule was applied correctly, then what about this: The Giants don't commit holding on the play and then Jackson taunts. Isn't it then in their best interest to take a swing at a guy, get offsetting penalties and cancel the play?

No, they signed Todd Collins last year, which proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Hanie played pretty decently in the NFC Championship game after the club foolishly gave Collins a couple of more series to confirm that whatever meager skills he once possessed had long since evaporated.

Bingo. The fact that they thought Collins was a better option -- even after seeing him play -- speaks volumes about their judgement regarding Hanie.

When a "double foul" occurs, when both teams commit a foul during a play, regardless of severity, the fouls are usually offset and the down is replayed. However the two fouls must be committed in the same time frame. For instance, two fouls during the active play can offset, but a foul during the play and a personal foul after the whistle may not. Two personal fouls after the play can offset, although this is not often called. In the NFL, a major (15 yard) penalty by one team may not offset a minor (5 yard) penalty by the other team.

Smith has never been the best judge of QB or in making risky decisions. If given a choice between a totally safe and likely losing choice and taking a risky choice that might not turn out but could work out he'll take the safe choice every time. As we saw in the last handful of games he'll only take risks on special teams when it means nothing to the game.

Caleb looked pretty good last year in a very stressful situation. Hopefully the Bears have recognized his potential and the need for a decent backup and have worked with him a lot. If so I can see 4-2 being there likely result. I'd say over the next 6 games the Bears will something between 2-4 and 4-2.

Hopefully the Packers show up for the Lions at the end of the season. If they do I can see the Lions going 2-4 or 3-3 from here on out.

If the rule was applied correctly, then what about this: The Giants don't commit holding on the play and then Jackson taunts. Isn't it then in their best interest to take a swing at a guy, get offsetting penalties and cancel the play?

Presumably, it's no longer a deadball foul in any instance. If the Giants don't hold and Jackson taunts, the Eagles are assessed the penalty from the LOS (half the distance, in this case).

Smith has never been the best judge of QB or in making risky decisions. If given a choice between a totally safe and likely losing choice and taking a risky choice that might not turn out but could work out he'll take the safe choice every time. As we saw in the last handful of games he'll only take risks on special teams when it means nothing to the game.

Agreed. In the already-way-too-risk-averse land of the NFL, Lovie Smith is the King.

Just to contribute to the question of whether run-heavy offenses like the option would work in the NFL, I don't think anyone has mentioned the 1978 Chiefs. Marv Levy was the coach. The Chiefs had a bad defense and the cromulent Mike Livingston at QB. Given his poor defense, Levy decided to institute the Wing-T offense. They ran for nearly 3000 yards that season on 663 rushing attempts, against 370 passing attempts.

They ended up 4-12, and the offense never scored more than 24 points a game, 24th out of 28 teams, after being 17th in 1977. If anyone has more info on that team, it would be useful.

"The prevailing thought was that Eagles should have been able to decline the penalty against the Giants, and then to have the 15 yards walked off after the play, giving Philly a 35-yard gain.

But the outcome reflected the proper application of a strange donut hole in the rule book.

The process gets started at Rule 14, Section 1, Article 9: “If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1).”

Regarding double fouls, Article 14, Section 3, Rule 1 provides as follows: “If there is a double foul . . . without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.”

In this case, a key exception almost applied, but ultimately didn’t. “If one of the fouls is of a nature that incurs a 15-yard penalty and the other foul of a double foul normally would result in a loss of 5 yards only (15 yards versus 5 yards),” the rule book states, “the major penalty yardage is to be assessed from the previous spot.” Since the penalty on the Giants entailed a five-yard penalty AND an automatic first down, the exception didn’t apply in Jackson’s case. Even if it had (for example, if the Giants had simply been offside), the Eagles would have had the 15 yards walked off (or, in this case, half the distance to the goal) from the previous spot.

Either way, the penalty on the Giants ultimately penalized the Eagles. Though the officials sorted it all out properly in real time, the rule book definitely needs to be tweaked to prevent such unfair outcomes."

Either way, the penalty on the Giants ultimately penalized the Eagles. Though the officials sorted it all out properly in real time, the rule book definitely needs to be tweaked to prevent such unfair outcomes."

They can get to that after they get that so-very-complicated "definition of a catch" thing worked out.

Well, I have seen a lot of progress in the "what is a catch" scenario in the last couple of years.

It was lousy, and then it got a LOT worse, and now I think it's a bit better than the original.

The middle ground was the weirdest - especially the part about needing to hire a notary public to sign off on the catch before the receiver hit the ground. That seemed a bit onerous, especially with no pre-qualifying of notaries. Even with a good hang time in mid-air.......

Every person who has ever played a sport knows exactly when a ball is caught and when it isn't. Only the NFL could turn that into an argument worthy of the Supreme Court.

Agreed. The current mess of "did he control it through the ground" is absurd. A receiver goes up and grabs a ball in the air, comes down, gets both feet in, steps out of bounds, falls to the ground and the ball comes loose. Only in the NFL would that not be a catch. Every rational person on the planet saw him control the ball; saw the two feet hit in bounds. Saw his next step go out of bounds. At that point the play is dead. The ball was caught and the play is dead. But the NFL has to watch the fall to the ground to see if the ground - which can't cause a fumble on a dead play - knocks the ball lose.

Regarding double fouls, Article 14, Section 3, Rule 1 provides as follows: “If there is a double foul . . . without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot.”

My first thought after that play is that we most often see taunting called after a touchdown, and I've never seen a touchdown called back for taunting. But I suppose a touchdown is considered a change of possession.

The rest of the NFC West is hapless, but the 49ers look to be pretty good. They've only played two games in-division so far (and are 2-0, of course); they're 7-1 against the rest of the league, with the lone loss coming in OT.

Seattle has taken a small step forward and, if they can get decent play from the QB spot, they might be a playoff contender 2012. Rams are a mess, which may be fixable over the off-season but they have to give Bradford time and play better defense. Cardinals, ugh, Kolb turned into a pumpkin fast and their defense struggles. They need to take a harder look into the mirror and understand they aren't an RB away from contending.

49ers are playing the Ravens - Dilfer era - game of good defense, good running game and no mistakes. It's worked against a light schedule but come playoff time it will be imperative to keep games close or be ahead as I don't see this team as built for the big comeback. Thursday night's game will be fun.

Niners also have great special teams - this is probably the difference between them and the (2011) Ravens.
The Niners schedule to date has been fairly easy, but not as easy as that of Green Bay, Houston, or the Giants.

The rest of their Schedule is pretty brutal. I think they go at best 2-3 from here, and 9 wins probably doesn't cut it. And I wouldn't be shocked if they went 1-4 either.

The Bears may go 4-2 or even 5-1 without Cutler. Green Bay is a loss, but the next toughest game is Oakland. After that they have Kansas City, Denver, Seattle, and Minnesota (not necessarily in that order). I think Detroit is going to be fighting for the 6th seed, and they lose the tiebreaker to Atlanta.

The Bears will be fine. Lovie has been coaching his team to minimize the importance of the qb position since Day 1. Anything they get out of the qb is a plus. If Hanie can avoid handing the ball to the opposition and makes a few plays a half Chicago will win more than its share of games.

Smith's old Bears team were designed sort of like a Trent Dilfer-Baltimore team in that they have a great defense and the QB doesn't turn the ball over. That really hasn't been a Bears team in a long time. The defense hasn't been as great as they once were and the offense has to be better than the Orton days to win games.* I think Hanie is better than Orton by a mile and his athleticsim is going to help a ton because the Bears still can't pass block worth a shvt.

It will be interesting to see how the defenses setup against the Bears. You'd think the Bears are going to come out run heavy in that first game and I don't really know if the Bears offensive line and Forte are good enough to get through it. Plus I think the last successful screen the Bears ever pulled off was done sometime in 1943 so it will be really interesting to see what Martz does. Does he go to the old run, draw, slant of the Orton days? Or does he just let Hanie scramble around until somebody rings his bell?

I think the Bears will muddle through it and get to the playoffs but I don't really hold out hope for much in the playoffs. Bears offensive line sucks and the defense isn't what it once was. Unless something weird happens the Bears would play the Packers in the second game of the playoffs should they win the first.

Suh's response to the issue has been, well, amazing. Does he really think he can get people to believe him? Well, I don't suppose you have to be bright to be a defensive tackle.

This response has been baffling to me. Suh has always (through college) been very well spoken, not at all press shy or cliche driven, all around a bright guy. Did he not know what he was doing? I've seen worse, Charles Martin slamming McMahon, etc., but come on dude.

This response has been baffling to me. Suh has always (through college) been very well spoken, not at all press shy or cliche driven, all around a bright guy. Did he not know what he was doing? I've seen worse, Charles Martin slamming McMahon, etc., but come on dude.

He didn't know what he was doing when he stepped on the guy. He was blind to his actions. Whether, after he sees it a few times he admits his irresponsible behavior, who knows.

Whatever shot Tony Sparano had at saving his job died when he decided to go conservative with 4 minutes to go. He was ahead, everyone expected a run, he had to throw... even if it was a safe swing pass or a quick toss to Fasano, he had to be aggressive.

I am constantly surprised at the clock mis-management I see in the NFL.

Clock management strikes me as pretty simple and straightforward; how is it these head coaches don't understand it?

A few weeks ago one of the teams (I forget which) was in one of those lame end-of-game situations where it was trying to stop the other team on three downs so that it could get the ball back and have a chance. (Why people find this exciting I'll never know.) Anyway, the team used one of its timeouts with 2:07 remaining.

What am I missing here? The timeout only saves you 7 seconds there. But on the other side of the two-minute warning, you can save basically the entire play clock.

EDIT: I count "time out management" as part of clock management.

If I were in charge, I'd tell my QB to just take the delay-of-game rather than burn a timeout, especially in the second half. The timeouts are worth so much at the end of the game, and yet coaches just throw them away on nonsense.

Yes, but if it were a deadball foul, then the Eagles would have gotten the completion, then had the taunting yards subtracted (but still a net positive).

Either way, Jackson's an idiot.

I don't really see why people get all riled up about this stuff. He's a good player. He made a dumb play. You live with it and move on. I'd applaud Reid for doing that, but he may have cost himself a game the week before when he sat Jackson down. If I were the owner and Reid kept Jackson out of a game for missing a meeting, I'd fire Reid on the spot. You're trying to win games, not boyscout merit badges.

Besides, half the players in the league engage in silly celebrations and taunting efforts. If people can't stomach that, they should probably find a different sport to watch.

Whatever shot Tony Sparano had at saving his job died when he decided to go conservative with 4 minutes to go. He was ahead, everyone expected a run, he had to throw... even if it was a safe swing pass or a quick toss to Fasano, he had to be aggressive.

I though his bigger error, by far, was failing to go for 2 when everyone knew he needed 2. He went up 15-10 with 4 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter and settled for the extra point. Why.

This response has been baffling to me. Suh has always (through college) been very well spoken, not at all press shy or cliche driven, all around a bright guy. Did he not know what he was doing? I've seen worse, Charles Martin slamming McMahon, etc., but come on dude.

I guess I'll have to also yawn at Suh's actions here. We see defensive players put unnecessarily brutal hits on runners, receivers, and QBs all the time. And we're supposed to get excited because some guy lost his cool and stomped on a player's side? What? Suh's actions couldn't possibly have hurt the player as much as concussions and violent hits to the upper body from defensive players have the potential to.

People are just all out of whack as far as what gets them all worked up. Suh is the Devil, but Polamalu is celebrated. Uh huh.

I though his bigger error, by far, was failing to go for 2 when everyone knew he needed 2. He went up 15-10 with 4 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter and settled for the extra point. Why.

An error, yes. But, at that point, it wasn't life or death to go for 2. My guess is he didn't go because he didn't want to be second-guessed if it failed. The same reason he didn't throw the ball with 4 minutes to go. Can't be chickensh@@ when your life's on the line.

Suh has always (through college) been very well spoken, not at all press shy or cliche driven, all around a bright guy.

Yeah, he's something else, isn't he? On the field, Suh plays like he just escaped from a home for the criminally insane. Off the field, he could pass for Michigan's attorney general.

Not that it excuses what Suh did, but the Packer offensive lineman was clearly holding onto Suh's jersey, trying to prevent him from getting up. It should have been flagged, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was half-intended to get Suh to do something ejectable.

The head pounding i dont care about but the intentional stomp is the issue. And there is a big difference between a hit on a player making a tackle and intentionally stomping on a guys arm, ray you are just nuts

The head pounding i dont care about but the intentional stomp is the issue. And there is a big difference between a hit on a player making a tackle and intentionally stomping on a guys arm, ray you are just nuts

The "big difference" is that one is considered legal, one illegal; one is considered "dirty," one isn't.

Putting a hit on a player that could lead to a concussion or worse -- and then pounding your chest over it -- is far worse than anything Suh did on Thursday. A thousand times over.

And I think Suh is a thug; it's not my intent to defend him. But people have their list of outrages incorrect and out of order.

#289, of course his stomp wasn't an accident. He deserved to be thrown out.

But so do the defensive players aiming to put other players in the hospital -- which is pretty much 99% of the league. Against that backdrop, spending more than 5 seconds worrying about what Suh did, painting him as evil, calling him names, strikes me as ludicrous.

I was in the car today. The WFAN host spent an entire segment yelling about what Suh did, the host's words dripping with venom. Are you kidding me? Suh stomped once on a guy's pads out of frustration. People need a bit of perspective.

At least Suh's actions were spur of the moment, unlike the hits defensive players plan.

I was in the car today. The WFAN host spent an entire segment yelling about what Suh did, the host's words dripping with venom. Are you kidding me? Suh stomped once on a guy's pads out of frustration. People need a bit of perspective.

At least Suh's actions were spur of the moment, unlike the hits defensive players plan.

I agree that rage is more rage is something I see a lot of these days. Maybe it's because of our media era where every event gets amplified that causes some people to try and scream louder than everyone else. But come on. Two weeks or three weeks ago a Packers OL was kicked in the balls and that got almost no mention, the offender was merely fined.

This is football. Suh was tossed and the player he kicked wasn't kicked that hard and was unhurt. The NFL and NFL media is partly to blame, they have turned Suh into this monster that breaks all the rules of decency in the game, which is an exaggeration, a huge exaggeration.

Making a larger point, it seems in the last decade, I've seen so many people take an odd position or attitude on rule breakers, (it could be slapping your wife or stealing gas or kicking a football player for example) that they basically should be banned for life, locked up forever, killed, etc.....as if the person should be eliminated from history due to a single event because the idea this person is eternally flawed. The concept of a finite punishment escapes these people.

he didnt stomp on the pads he stomped on his unprotected arm with clear intent to hurt him. trying to tackle a guy and make him feel it is way ####### different, its an actual football play, is the defender supposed to just touch him and hope he goes down? of course not. do you not understand the game of football? stomping on a players arm after the play and completely unrelated to the play its self has no place in the game. and LOS were not calling for him to banned just a game or 2 suspension for the very very dirty and very visible play

#296, Meatwad, I just can't get all worked up about it, and I DO think it's not nearly as bad as trying to knock offensive players into next week or next year. You're drawing a distinction -- while time is in vs. while time is out -- that doesn't move me.

And from what I recall, he stomped on his pads on his side, not on his arm. Not that stomping on his arm would rise to the level of some these vicious hits to the upper body.

What am I missing here? The timeout only saves you 7 seconds there. But on the other side of the two-minute warning, you can save basically the entire play clock.

The timeout forces an additional play to be run before the two-minute warning.

Scenario one: Timeout at 2:07. Second down runs to the two-minute warning. Third down takes maybe six seconds, 39 more run off before the punt at 1:15.
Scenario two: Let the clock run to the two-minute warning after first down. Call timeout after second down at 1:54. 45 more seconds for third down and the punt: 1:09.

I though his bigger error, by far, was failing to go for 2 when everyone knew he needed 2. He went up 15-10 with 4 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter and settled for the extra point. Why.

Because only you knew with that much time left that he needed two. For all everyone else knew, they'd miss the two-point conversion and give up two fourth-quarter field goals to lose by a point. Or they'd give up a touchdown and a two-point conversion, then only be able to tie the game with a field goal instead of winning it. There are too many scenarios with that much time left, which is why they wait until the end game becomes clearer to go for two.

What am I missing here? The timeout only saves you 7 seconds there. But on the other side of the two-minute warning, you can save basically the entire play clock.

Scenario one: Timeout at 2:07. Second down runs to the two-minute warning. Third down takes maybe six seconds, 39 more run off before the punt at 1:15.
Scenario two: Let the clock run to the two-minute warning after first down. Call timeout after second down at 1:54. 45 more seconds for third down and the punt: 1:09.

This particular instance doesn't sound like it*, but there are examples of misusing TOs around the two-minute warning that can cost a team a considerable amount of time (last year's AFC title game was one).